Pages

Friday, 28 June 2013

Shock cinema: My opinions

A few months ago, a friend and I nearly went to see the film "Stoker" based on the fact that even though we were both "grown up" we haven't actually seen an "artsy" film ever.

However, we didn't end up going.

And am I so glad that we didn't because I read the synopsis on IMDB today and to say the least, I was disappointed.

It is not "art". It is shock cinema. It is a way to celebrate sick criminals by portraying them as people who have been considered attractive.

According to IMDB, the girl in the film reached orgasm thinking of a murder being committed. That's not normal. She nearly has sex with her uncle. That is also not normal.

Maybe I am naive/stupid/unappreciative of art. But I don't understand the point of it all. It doesn't tell a story. It sexualises/glorifies murder and tries to beautify incest.

If this were to happen in real life everyone would feel sickened by it right? (Maybe it would be slightly better if the film actually tries to condemn this behaviour. But it doesn't.) Or would the director and actors watch in awe and maybe get a little joy from it(sexually)? There's a good reason no good actors have decided to make an appearance in this film.

Another annoying part of the film is that it says attractive people can get away with anything, even murder. I would happily put the characters of this braindead film into the house of Saw.

I don't consider shock cinema art. I don't think its enjoyable and most importantly, I don't see the point of it because it doesn't tell a story.

It's sad because if you have seen the film Thesis, you would understand my point of view. People will become more and more immune to violence and immoralities if they are overexposed to them especially if they were glorified in films.